John McCain welcomed a Supreme Court decision invalidating a District of Columbia handgun ban. Barack Obama sought to straddle the subject by saying he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.
The hotly contentious issue surfaced in the presidential campaign Thursday after the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns and struck down the 32-year-old D.C. ban.
McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, heralded the justices' action as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."
Voicing a stance that could help him woo conservatives and libertarians, McCain said, "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."
His Democratic rival, Obama, issued a more carefully worded statement apparently aimed at both moderate voters and his liberal base. The statement from Obama, who has long said local governments should be able to regulate guns, did not specifically say whether Obama agreed with overturning the specific D.C. ban. But he said Thursday's ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures," Obama said.
What a courageous stance you’re taking Obama! You’re basically trying to have it both ways. A leader makes a decision based upon the facts in front of him. Instead, you’re trying to not piss off anyone on either side of the issue. That makes you a coward at best.
Study after endless studies have shown that areas where gun control is at a high level, crime flourishes. Where it isn’t, it doesn’t. It’s a simple fact; If criminals think someone might be armed, they will be less likely to try to make that person a victim of a crime.
You, on the other hand, would rather take the guns out of peoples hands, including your stance on trying to ban semi-automatic weapons.
Funny how you chide President Bush for “taking away your rights”, but you don’t seem to have a problem trying to take away mine. That makes you a hypocrite.
You even contradict yourself within one sentence:
Obama said his view was supported by the court's ruling that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns." That language "reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe," Obama said.
If there’s no “absolute prohibition of handguns”, then that in of itself means that you can’t restrict them, which is something that you are talking about when you talk about “keeping our communities and our children safe”.
We’re talking about a fundamental right here Obama, like Freedom of Speech, Religion, and to peaceably assemble.
Yet, you don’t seem to see the similarities.
You like to bring out the same old, tired “won’t someone think of the children” act.
But even other people are starting to notice your bit of lying:
The Democrat's campaign said a spokesman made an "inartful" statement when he said in November that Obama believed the D.C. law was constitutional. But Obama himself did not correct a debate moderator who repeated the position in February.
"You said in Idaho recently, I'm quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," said the moderator, Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA. Obama nodded as Harris spoke, nodding and saying, "Right, right."
"How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Harris asked.
Obama answered that the United States has conflicting traditions of gun ownership and street violence that results from illegal handgun use. "So, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets," Obama said.
The Obama campaign argued that Obama was simply acknowledging the question by saying "right."
So, you’ve been proven to support bans on semi-automatic weapons, which is a standard feature of just about any weapon made today, AND you didn’t correct someone when they asked you about your statement about the DC handgun ban being Constitutional.
You’re lying.
Campaigning in Cincinnati, McCain claimed Obama has reversed course on the issue. Obama told FOX Business Network that he's been consistent.
You’re even lying there. You’re NOT being consistent. You’re saying one thing, but doing another. That’s not the kind of “change” that people who are your supporters are believing. They think you’re almost heaven sent.
I get the feeling that you’re just another Democrat, circa 2006. You’ll make a bunch of pretty speeches, denounce President Bush and Republicans in general, and then, once in office, you’ll do nothing and try to coast your way through your term, losing support along the way.
I certainly hope I’m wrong, but let’s face it, if you follow the evidence, you’ll see I’m probably not.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
during this campaign,” Obama told his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) last week during a private meeting. He repeated the “I bit my tongue” phrase three times during the meeting, the sources said. 
![[Christopher Dodd]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GI876_Dodd_20070905231104.gif)